19 Jul 21
@averagejoe1 saidChina is a free market economy, not communist in reality.
Look up all news outlets referring to China as Communist. I guess you can split hairs but you really are saying nothing.
They have been described as having a capitalist economy.
We trade with China. There is no embargo or blockade imposed on China. Guess why. They are not communist at all. That is just another improper usage of political terms. We have a sweet economic relationship with China. They can put people in slave labor camps and harvest organs from people and our government is fine with that. They are putting a lot of US dollars in circulation and buying oil with it. For that we can overlook the human rights horrors in China.
19 Jul 21
@no1marauder saidMarauder speaks a lot about other countries, he suggested, or some like-kind lib suggested that we should be like a little 5mlion person hamlet like Norway. Hilarious stuff. That thread was one of typical ones that just stops when libs can say nothing else. Hilarious.
It's interesting that right wing, laissez faire types want to include certain wealthy countries as "capitalist" when if many of the policies they pursue (enhanced social welfare, increased taxation of the wealthy, government control or heavy regulation of critical industries, etc. etc.) are proposed in the US they deem them as invariably leading to "socialism" or even "communism".
Cake and eat it types, I guess.
Now see Marauders words about other countries above, Where he says increase taxes, welfare , and government regulation would not lead to socialism.. maybe it doesn’t there, but it sure would here. Does anyone disagree?
Can you imagine living under socialism? It wouldn’t bother me, as I would actually be a socialist, so , not affected. Since Marauder really wants that, I have a feeling he would qualify as a socialist as well and have a grand old time. We’ll end up being friends.
19 Jul 21
1 edit
@no1marauder saidDo you ACTUALLY think you answered my question. 2 clicks back,,,,,embargo the neighbor question?
Then why doesn't the US embargo Saudi Arabia or many other countries which are anti-democratic violators of Natural Rights? IF you are espousing a moral principle i.e. we don't allow trade with despotic regimes, you must concede the US violates it pretty much everywhere BUT Cuba (maybe Iran, too).
19 Jul 21
@AverageJoe1
Liberals dont answer questions. They re-write it or, as in this case, write something else.
19 Jul 21
@averagejoe1 saidYes, I did.
Do you ACTUALLY think you answered my question. 2 clicks back,,,,,embargo the neighbor question?
If you embargo Neighbor A for such behavior, wouldn't you have to embargo Neighbor Z if he did the same thing?
19 Jul 21
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidActually your response to questions being answered is one of two:
@AverageJoe1
Liberals dont answer questions. They re-write it or, as in this case, write something else.
1) Pretend they didn't answer because you don't like the answer; and/or
2) Be too thick to understand they did answer your question.
19 Jul 21
1 edit
@no1marauder saidFreer / free trade yes, but with allies. The US is under no obligation to be consistent and can impose embargoes at will. Thats their right.
Countries don't trade with other countries (by and large). The embargo restricts US companies and individuals from doing business and travelling to Cuba.
As an ardent defender of capitalism, I would have thought you'd be a proponent of "free trade" which the embargo clearly violates the principle of.
IMO, IF the US is being consistent it should embargo all countrie ...[text shortened]...
This is not to defend the latter's violation of Natural Rights by maintaining a dictatorial system.
19 Jul 21
@metal-brain saidGo to Cuba and buy your cigars. Yes the US wanted to hurt Cuba and Cuba was aware of that back in 1959 when they started communism. The US [and many of the western countries have decided not to trade with communist countries. I agree with them.
Why can't I buy Cuban rum or cigars? Why can't I sell products to Cuba?
It is to hurt the Cuban economy. No other reason.
Why do you justify economic punishment? Are you afraid a country close to socialism but isn't by definition socialism will do well? You clearly want to make Cuba fail. You are not interested in free markets or free trade.
You want to force lef ...[text shortened]... ent fair competition for leftist countries in general? You are betraying your own stated principals.
No. Im not interested in free markets. Im interested in seeing the death of communism and socialism. Thankfuly I dont have long to wait. Cuba is on its way down. North Korea is next. Are you going to cry and throw a tantrum when that happens ? 😀
19 Jul 21
@rajk999 saidWell, it's a political choice not a right.
Freer / free trade yes, but with allies. The US is under no obligation to be consistent and can impose embargoes at will. Thats their right.
But a choice advocates of "free trade" and limited government should abhor since it definitely imposes economic costs on the People of the US for no economic benefits.
19 Jul 21
1 edit
@no1marauder saidObviously we are not talking about textbook definitions of capitalism, socialism and communism. Those dont exist in the real world. All countries have mixed systems. This is not a classroom but a chat forum discussion on the practical realities of various mixed systems. The ones that lean toward capitalism are more successful. You cannot argue otherwise. The mixed systems which lean toward too much socialism or communism have failed. Its a fact, not an opinion.
It's interesting that right wing, laissez faire types want to include certain wealthy countries as "capitalist" when if many of the policies they pursue (enhanced social welfare, increased taxation of the wealthy, government control or heavy regulation of critical industries, etc. etc.) are proposed in the US they deem them as invariably leading to "socialism" or even "communism".
Cake and eat it types, I guess.
19 Jul 21
@no1marauder saidCuba DID something to warrant the embargo. They took over, nationalized, american oil refineries. A direct affront, attack, whatever you want to call it. You are President of USA, sitting in Oval office. Wacha gonna do? Plenty, because no one messes with the USA. I could write on, but you get my drift. That is the difference as far as I can tell.
Then why doesn't the US embargo Saudi Arabia or many other countries which are anti-democratic violators of Natural Rights? IF you are espousing a moral principle i.e. we don't allow trade with despotic regimes, you must concede the US violates it pretty much everywhere BUT Cuba (maybe Iran, too).
19 Jul 21
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYes, if he did the same thing. But we are talking about the neighbor next door to me. We are talking about what HE did. Your liberal slyness, and segueing, is showing Marauder, God, WHY can't you libs stay on an issue? Is this where Suzianne would say you are doing a 'whataboutism",,,I'm not too keen on that term.
Yes, I did.
If you embargo Neighbor A for such behavior, wouldn't you have to embargo Neighbor Z if he did the same thing?
And we were dealing with Cuba, not New Zealand or Belgium. Stay with me here.....
19 Jul 21
@no1marauder saidEasy Marauder,,,,,I got you on this one, you simply did not answer.
Actually your response to questions being answered is one of two:
1) Pretend they didn't answer because you don't like the answer; and/or
2) Be too thick to understand they did answer your question.
20 Jul 21
@rajk999 saidWhat is "leaning too far" towards "socialism and communism"? Does present day China "lean" towards capitalism even though most of their economy consists of State owned enterprises? Was the Soviet Union/Russia more economically successful when it "leaned towards socialism and communism" or when it "leaned towards capitalism"?
Obviously we are not talking about textbook definitions of capitalism, socialism and communism. Those dont exist in the real world. All countries have mixed systems. This is not a classroom but a chat forum discussion on the practical realities of various mixed systems. The ones that lean toward capitalism are more successful. You cannot argue otherwise. The mixed systems which lean toward too much socialism or communism have failed. Its a fact, not an opinion.
There is no "fact" one way or the other; different countries have had and continue to have different experiences.
20 Jul 21
@averagejoe1 saidWell which is it; are you espousing a moral principle or not? Do we treat A country differently from Z for doing the same thing to its People? Or does it really have nothing to do with morals at all?
Yes, if he did the same thing. But we are talking about the neighbor next door to me. We are talking about what HE did. Your liberal slyness, and segueing, is showing Marauder, God, WHY can't you libs stay on an issue? Is this where Suzianne would say you are doing a 'whataboutism",,,I'm not too keen on that term.
And we were dealing with Cuba, not New Zealand or Belgium. Stay with me here.....
Not trading with countries that violate basic Natural Rights would be acceptable to me, but it would mean embargoing most of our Arab "allies" as well as Israel.